“Compromise” has turned in to a dirty word for many Republicans. Following the last debt ceiling battle and the resultant negotiations, two distinct factions emerged within the GOP: those whose mantra was “hold the line” and those who took no issue in bargaining with their Democratic counterparts. Those in camp “hold the line” tend to have an unrealistic expectation for what one half of one-third of the legislative branch can accomplish. Conversely, those who accept the negotiating skills that produced the failed Super Committee misunderstand the art of compromise.

In a recent interview Ted Cruz, Texan candidate for U.S. Senate, discussed his views on compromise:

“My view on compromise is the same as Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan used to say, “if they offer you half a loaf, what do you do?” And his answer was, “you take half a loaf and then you come back for more.” I’m interested in moving the cause of liberty forward. So if we are advancing in a positive way, if we are shrinking the size of the federal government, if we are moving towards fundamental tax reforms, simplifying the tax code, moving towards a low uniform rate towards everyone, then I’m willing to compromise and accept less than 100% if we are moving forward. Now I intend to come back and keeping getting it, but I want to affirmatively move the ball forward. The problem is some of the Republicans in Washington compromise, moving backwards.

Let me give you an example, the last fight over the debt ceiling and the next fight that’s coming, I was one of the first proponents in the country to support Cut, Cap and Balance. Now in my view, Cut, Cap and Balance is a compromise. My ideal position is not to raise a penny of the debt limit, period – the end. It is a compromise to say, we can raise it if we make the serious structural changes it will take to fix the problem. Cut the budget, real cut, not phantom cuts that Washington people like. Cap, put in serious enforceable budget cuts, and most importantly, balance. Pass, not introduce, which is the Washington wiggle worm word, but actually pass a strong BBA that requires a balanced budget, requires a super majority to raise taxes and limits federal government spending to a percentage of GDP. That’s an example of a compromise. It is less than what I think the perfect outcome would be, but it is a significant enough move in the direction of liberty that I would be willing to accept that.

Part of the problem is you have so many people in Washington that are not focused on the goal of advancing of liberty that they don’t make any distinction between moving forward and moving backwards. There is no virtue in compromise if you make things worse. An analogy I often use, if you agree that the threat to our nation, to our liberty is dire, the answer is not to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, the answer is to turn the ship around. So I’m not interested in compromise that doesn’t solve the problem, but I will accept less than 100% of everything I want if we are moving in a strong, positive direction in a way that advances liberty.”

Mr. Cruz’s stance on compromise is precisely the view that the Republican party ought to have. The GOP must continue to fight for the advancement of liberty and freedom and measures that shrink the scope of the federal government yet understand that not every battle can be won in a day.

(h/t The Political Operative)

___




Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

19 comments
Glen Tschirgi
Glen Tschirgi

I think the answer that we are all looking for here is not "compromise" but Victory. It is an all-out, all-hands-on-deck effort to elect more conservatives every election cycle to Congress so there is a clear majority in the House and 60+ in the Senate. Getting a conservative in the White House, too, eventually. At that point, the word "compromise" is moot. Democrats are welcome to join in the agenda and will not be locked out like the Dems did in 2009 and 2010, but they will not be catered to or begged for cooperation. The country has spoken. The majority does not want socialism, Big Government, Big Regulations, Big Spending or Crony Capitalism. As bbitter says, there is no compromising on these things. Holding up Ronald Reagan to prove a point is not cutting it. It's like plucking a bible verse out of context to justify what you want to do. In 2012, we want clear majorities and we want bold action to cut government down to its Constitutional size and no more compromise.

Until we get those majorities, we want obstruction, stalling, withholding funding, filibustering... anything and everything it takes to stop Obama and the Left from implementing a single item of their destructive agenda.

Unfortunately, we still have too many Pubs in Congress who care about what the Leftist Media thinks about them and care too much about collegiality and the voices of fear that say they cannot be re-elected if they stand their ground. Conservatives in 2010 finally got the message across to these people that if you *don't* stand your ground, we are going to primary your sorry self and find someone who will. No more squishy candidates. Dem or Pub. It is no longer good enough to have an "R" next to your name on the ballot. We want conservatives like Rubio and Allen West.

K-Bob
K-Bob

Now I'm back at the Boogie Southern Compound, I can get back to joining in the comments again.

Compromise is a funny old concept. Like many political concepts, it is subject to abuse, extreme stretching, and general mayhem. Most adults know what compromising means. It just means you are willing to take what you can out of a situation, knowing ahead of time you aren't likely to get everything. That's all there is to it, really.

Where folks go wrong is in thinking compromise is the same thing as strategy.

When you understand strategy, you realize the decision to compromise is only made at the critical point where you realize your strategy didn't achieve all of it's goals. The belief that we need more compromise is equivalent to the belief that we need fewer goals.

cabensg
cabensg

When was the last time you saw any leftist politician, leftist Hollywood anything, leftist union goon or leftist MSM talking head talk about compromising with Republicans...................................I'm waiting........................still waiting.

Oh! finally an answer. NEVER.

Mr. Cruz can come back and talk about compromise when anyone of those liberal groups comes forward and says they are willing to compromise in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY on anything. Until then the word compromise is no longer part of my vocabulary nor should it be any part of an elected Republican's vocabulary.

There might be a report from my great, great, great, great grandchildren on how liberals finally compromised. Until then no... you know what.

cabensg
cabensg

The reason Reagan had to compromise is because he had a Democrat Congress.

If we don't want to compromise and want the Democrats to have to do the compromising then we need a majority in the Senate and need to hold on to or increase our numbers in the House. Only with a Republican president bent on cutting government, balancing the budget, reducing the debt and a Republican Congress to back him will we be able to do away with compromise to liberal socialist policies that have ruined our country. We need to make this happen.

FishyGov
FishyGov

As a Tea Partier need I remind Rep. Cruz or conservatives that the class of 2010 was not sent to Washington DC to COMPROMISE. It was sent to DC to reduce the size of our government and its spending.

Compromising is what got us in this fiscal mess to begin with!

Liz Theiss
Liz Theiss

I have read about three e-mails of concerned Tea Party patriots over affiliations Of Cruz with CFR. Bummer!

AmericanborninCanada
AmericanborninCanada

I don't see his name under the membership roster. I know Newt's a member though.

AmericanborninCanada
AmericanborninCanada

I've never been one to appreciate compromise- I've seen how that works, and yes, I've lost "friends" over my not compromising on my beliefs. I can understand this candidate's view, especially the last part "So I’m not interested in compromise that doesn’t solve the problem, but I will accept less than 100% of everything I want if we are moving in a strong, positive direction in a way that advances liberty"

The only thing is, we've seen from the left that they can look you in the eye, and lie with a straight face, so even if it seemed like a workable plan, if libs are involved, it most likely would backfire.

TimA
TimA

Capitulating - that is a good descriptive word. To capitulate is to accept defeat.

Compromising is neutral. It can be done under a position of strength, which is something RINOs have no concept of.

TimA
TimA

Conservatives are the true Moderates. We determine the debate, and we choose how the compromising should end; with the closet-leftist RINOs.

TimA
TimA

Yes, and that is what will happen if America sticks her head in the sand and takes a defensive role in the world.

VirusX
VirusX

Personally, I more agree with Rush Limbaugh: the victors do not compromise with the vanquished. They certainly didn't.

The Right Scoop
The Right Scoop

Actually that was from Red. But thank you anyway :-)

DaMz
DaMz

This man is great for the conservative movement . I have been asking all who can for months now, PLEASE support him in any way you can .

He's doing well and we need to ensure his win.

If you listen to him for even a moment , you know this guy has what it takes to get this country back on track . Youtube some of his interviews or speeches he's SPOT ON.

Please support Ted Cruz for 2012 Senate.

Trust1TG
Trust1TG

LIKE, like, like - a thousand likes!

PunditPawn
PunditPawn

The Republican's only job is to oppose Obama at every turn, and block any attempt to increase the debt.

AmericanborninCanada
AmericanborninCanada

I've never been so desperate for gridlock as I have for the past 3 years.